accessibility guide - #3098
Conversation
drgrice1
left a comment
drgrice1
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
On the graphTool, this states that it has no non-visual interaction model, and that is NOT true anymore.
drgrice1
left a comment
drgrice1
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Also, on the Plots::Plot usage, how is using that with a good alternate text any different than using a static image with a good alternate text? I don't think that this should discourage using the Plots::Plot approach. Note that Plots::Plot does not generate interactive graphs.
|
Those are the areas in particular that I left as Claude wrote them, knowing they are bad. I'm expecting them to be removed or replaced, I just don't know what to say if there is still anything to say. Are there known accessibility cautions to give about using either of them? I guess I should have just cleared the Claude text and left placeholder text. |
|
I do not know that the functionality of the graphTool is perfect, and I am certain it will still need more work. But just saying it is not accessible completely defeats the purpose of the work that I recently did on it. |
| - There is a Student Orientation that ships with WeBWorK, which orients students | ||
| to navigation and accessibility features. | ||
| - Site navigation is built with accessibility and user experience in mind. | ||
| - Answer blanks have labeling and other accessible features. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@drgrice1 Did you ever look at the issue where labels to answer blanks were lost when mathquill hid the original answer blank that had a label but didn't copy that label over to the mathquil blank?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
No. I will try to look into that.
|
For GraphTool, do you think one of the following options are good?
Or you can make an edit as a suggestion in the diff, and I'll just approve it. |
| - Timed tests may have their times adjusted, and students can be assigned an | ||
| "accommodation factor" to expand all timed tests by the same factor. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is this really an accessibility feature?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe not, but it's something that I thought would be of interest to a disability services department that would be reading this. (BTW, that's more the audience that this is for, not faculty or students.)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@Alex-Jordan in that case would it be worth mostly mentioning that problems accessibility can vary based on how it is authored, and make a second guide for authors?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The point is to make disability services staff feel comfortable that solutions exist for converting inaccessible problems to accessible ones. Whatever accomplishes that. But we don't have time to write a comprehensive separate authoring guide right now.
|
@Alex-Jordan: I think that the second option for the GraphTool sounds right. |
OK, I'll make an edit like that and push soon. |
64b652f to
ab116e9
Compare
|
I would suggest updating the information on alt tags and clarify that it is for static images. For graphs generated using |
Could I invite you to write what it should say, and either suggest that here in GitHub, or open a PR to my branch? This accessibility guide surveys so many things (like |
|
Should we be including what accessibility checks WW has passed? We should be able to say something about the interface meeting accessibility standards of certain automated checkers as of the 2.21 release. |
By all means, please do :) I don't have time to conduct a thorough review. I don't want to write "WeBWorK conforms to WCAG X.Y level Z" without actually checking everything in that standard. But I don't mind if someone else wants to. |
4 participants
This has issues, and I need to ask for everyone's (@drgrice1, @pstaabp, @somiaj, @dlglin) input to make this acceptable for a first release. Anyone else who wants to jump in? (@dpvc, @taniwallach, @glarose?) Perhaps it is easiest to contribute to this just by making a GitHub suggestion. But PRs to my branch are welcome.
This started out as a Claude-built summary of WeBWorK's accessibility. It was not great. I rewrote almost all of it except for the "Guidance for problem authors and editors" section. In that section, I added a thing or two, removed several things, and left other things as Claude wrote them even though I know they are bad. I'm especially wary of the graphTool section. The problem is I'm struggling to describe to people well how they should go about writing problems well, and even more with how to tell people how to convert existing problems to a more accessible form. I'm wondering if those of you who have worked more with the editor could take a stab at those sections. There is the conversion tool to PGML. The PG critic. The various links to sample problems, PGML help, and POD.